Just Who Are the Defenders of Wildlife?
by Nate Dickinson, Wildlife Biologist

Although the Defenders of Wildlife have been in existence about
50 years, it is only within the last few years that they have
made their presence increasingly known in New York and New England.
The Defenders assumed role in recent efforts to extend the
distribution of the gray wolf, Canis lupis, should raise
questions as to their agenda and answers should shed light on
concerns arising from this controversial program.

A review of the highly acclaimed book Trashing the Economy,
(Ron Arnold and Alan Gottlieb, Free Enterprise Press, Bellevue,
Washington 1993) provides a good background. Defenders of Wildlife
was founded in 1947 in reaction to the use of steeljaw leghold
traps for predator control. Their history reveals that they evaluate
hunting on a case by case basis, but campaign for non-lethal wildlife
control. In 1993 they ranked 16th, in terms of income, among the
national environmental groups. Insight as to their views on other
environmental matters can be gleaned from their involvement in
the 1988 treatise Blueprint for the Environment. M. Rupert Cutler,
President of Defenders at the time, was a voting member of the
committee that produced this work which called for a staggering
rise in taxpayer funding of environmental causes, and which would
gradually eliminate private property, free enterprise, and individual
liberty.

The first set of recommendations of the Blueprint,
according to Arnold and Gottlieb, dealt with human population
control, and included support for organizations such as the United
Nations Population Fund. The National Wildlife Federation was
one of the lead organizations with others such as the National
Resources Defense Council, The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club,
Worldwatch Institute, and Friends of Earth, also having voting
members on the steering committee. Does this account provide any
clues? Does it raise any concerns as to whether Defenders
programs should be supported or contributions should be made to
their organization?

Kathleen Marquardt in her well-documented and widely-read book
Animal Scam, The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights (Regnery
Publishing, Washington, D.C. 1993) includes Defenders of Wildlife
in a list of United States animal rights groups. Inclusion with
the radical elements of this movement should alert the reader
to what this organization might have in mind.

Some of the Defenders of Wildlifes literature suggests
the nature of their motives and direction. They follow the lead
of other environmental groups in lacing their writings, such as
their Fact Sheets, with the required new age buzzwords, most of
which are inappropriate concoctions. The term biological diversity,
or biodiversity, is liberally used. What they fail to appreciate
is that the variety of living species that naturally occur on
a given site is a by-product of basic physiographic features.
The potential remains, under the dictates of Mother Nature, regardless
what they, or others, might do. And protectionists neglect the
obvious; that, if the potential is to be maximized, habitats must
be carefully manicured in such a way to guarantee a niche for
each species.

Of course, there must be frequent mention of ecosystems and
their protection. What is usually ignored is the fact that there
are infinite numbers of ecosystems, with infinite sizes and shapes,
and they are constantly changing; again under the dictates of
Nature. Gap analysis is another new creation; one that has the
taint of the popular core/buffer/corridor syndrome and the goal
of locking up vast acreages of land. The same applies to the term
landscape linkage. Incidentally, in discussing the gray wolf they
state that this species may occupy home ranges of several hundred
square miles. This ploy seems to be commonly used by environmentalists
to justify the lock up of land. Abnormally high home ranges should
alert the biologist to the possibility of the habitat being decidedly
marginal or that the species really does not belong.

One of the Fact Sheets advertises that they sponsored two books
on biodiversity. One of these, Saving Natures
Legacy, was written by Reed F. Noss and Allen Y. Cooperrider.
A little research shows that Noss has been active within the extreme
elements of the environmental movement for years, Michael Coffman
(Saviors of the Earth, Northfield Publishing, Chicago 1994)
provides a revealing resumé. At the 1993 annual meeting
of the Society of Conservation Biologists, Noss presented an extreme
plan, called the Wildlands Project, to protect North American
biodiversity by creating a network of wilderness reserves, human
buffer zones, and wildlife corridors. Involved would be about
half of the continent. Sound familiar? It should.

It is not surprising that these earth-shaking goals are the
same as those of the most radical environmental groups. Coffman
notes that Bruce Babbitt and George Frampton attempted to push
through Congress a scaled down version of such in the form of
the National Biological Survey. Undoubtedly, the Defenders were
sympathetic to Nosss cause.

Noss is also a board member of the Cenozoic Society, which
publishes Wild Earth and seems to have a deeply rooted
disdain for people and human progress. In 1993 he contributed
an article for a book entitled Clearcut, which was copyrighted
by the Foundation for Deep Ecology. A review of his piece reveals
that he and others of his ilk feel that their goals can only be
reached with drastic declines in wood harvest and total land protection.
Noss recommended that 50 percent of the United States be wilderness.
Quite presumptuous indeed.

Defenders of wildlife appear to attempt to divorce themselves
from the more radical elements. At the 1997 winter meeting of
the Adirondack Conservation Council, Robert Ferris, Director of
their Species Conservation Division, stated that his organization
did not belong to the Northern Forest Alliance. A check of a slick
1995 publication of the Alliance, entitled, The Northern Forest,
A Legacy For the Future, showed that Defenders was included
in a list of 26 member organizations, all with a green and left
lean.

At a time when the United States is setting a splendid example,
despite obvious overkill, and leading the world in addressing
environmental problems, the Defenders of Wildlife place a great
deal of faith in the United Nations and related international
organizations. Despite the wealth of funds at their disposal,
the U.N. has a horrible record in solving problems, let alone
accurately identifying them. The Defenders pride themselves in
helping to draft the Convention on International Trade on Endangered
Species and being the only U.S. advocacy group to participate
throughout in drafting an international biodiversity treaty. One
would guess that they also favor Biosphere Reserves, the World
Heritage Convention, and other entities with a new world flavor,
all of which threaten American sovereignty.

A Defenders of Wildlife employee participated in a public discussion
of wolf recovery programs held in January at Caroga Lake, New
York. A requirement of Defenders was that police protection be
provided. It was noted that such was not needed at the heated,
free-for-all discussions of Adirondack deer management in the
past. One of the wolf meeting organizers pointed out a major differencethe
biologists promoting increased deer harvests were honest.